Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader is just one of many who have pointed out that things don't look good for Uber in Berlin. Berlin has banned car service Uber, which allows users to summon a ride on their smartphone, for not offering drivers and vehicles licensed to carry passengers, or full insurance cover, the German capital said. The ban takes immediate effect and Uber risks fines of up to 25,000 euros each time it violates the city's Public Transport Act, Berlin authorities said in a statement. Uber said on Thursday it would appeal against the decision, accusing Berlin of denying its people choice and mobility. "As a new entrant we are bringing much-needed competition to a market that hasn't changed in years. Competition is good for everyone and it raises the bar and ultimately it's the consumer who wins," said Fabien Nestmann, German General Manager at Uber. Undaunted by the setback in Berlin, Uber has launched uberTAXI in Hong Kong.

accusing Berlin of denying its people choice and mobility. "As a new entrant we are bringing much-needed competition to a market that hasn't changed in years. Competition is good for everyone and it raises the bar and ultimately it's the consumer who wins," There is a law. German wide. Which says: to transport people commercially you need a "commercial transport license". Just like a pilot with a PPL may not commercially transport persons but needs a commercial transport license. Heck, even if you drive a mini bus with more than 7 passengers _privately_ you need a "personell transport license".

This is not an "anti Uber law", this is law valid for every citizen or corporation.

Trying to make a law suit against current valid law is just idiotic. Try to change the law instead, well if you can.

If Uber wants to do business they should "hire" 'professional drivers' who have the same professional education other 'cap' or 'bus' drivers have.

The govt in this case doesn't care about that, they want their licensing money back.

You are right. But then without tax and revenue from licensing how will the government function?
We can always argue whether a specific regulation is needed or not, but are you are using the usual "small government", "starve the beast" idea?

As an American who actually payed attention in History and Civics classes, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that regulating business practices is one of the few things our government was actually established to do, due in large part to the shady practices that King George allowed corporations like the East India Tea Company to use on colonists.

Bull. As a citizen of Berlin I'm very happy that the government regulates people working in the transport business.I don't want to be driven in a bus or car that doesn't conform to safety regulations or by a driver that has been working so many hours that he is sleepy or otherwise not able to safely bring me from A to B.

And if Uber and Lyft ignore the regulations already in place then they have no business doing business.

Don't bother. The libertarian view is that everyone should check that the vehicle is safe and the driver competent before making a contract to be transported with them. Ideally when you get on the bus there should be a verifiable certificate of road-worthiness and the driver's licence, complete with a contract exempting the bus company from all liability for you to sign. Poor people can take a cheaper bus without the certificates, because basic safety is a personal "choice" (mostly influenced by the amount

I actually think that the reality is more zero-sum here. People already must use transport and do so every day, so bringing an option into the market does not magically produce more consumers for it.

The regulated and licensed drivers are not unaffected by the business Uber takes away from them, which may either force them to raise prizes, lower quality or go out of business. All of these options will lower the quality of service for the person you are replying to, so for him/her, it is a rational option to

This is not one of those things where you need to "compromise" so that some people are disadvantaged SO THAT another group may be disadvantaged.

Unless you're the person in the lane next to the Uber car when its high-mileage, improperly-maintained components break, or the person crossing the road in front when the Uber driver falls asleep, and then you get to be in the accident too.

Regulations on commercial drivers exist for a reason, and it's not just for the benefit of the passengers inside a commercial vehicle.

Providing an alternative that is competitive merely by virtue of not following the same rules as everyone else isn't an improvement. Compe

I don't see words like "skill", "competence", or "quality" in the GP's comment. So how the fuck is it making the implication that you've incorrectly claimed it's making? Oh, that's right, it isn't. Did you even read that goddamn comment before you replied to it?

The motivation behind such regulation is irrelevant. Maybe it's about quality. Maybe it's about money. Maybe it's about both. It doesn't fucking matter. What does matter is that the regulations exist, they're enforced against everybody, and if you're going to involve yourself or your business in such activities then you're going to have to abide by such regulations.

Please don't pollute our discussion with your bullshit about "implications" that obviously aren't even being made. If you can't handle the mature, intelligent, adult discussion we're engaging in here, then please drag your sorry ass back to reddit.

Anti-establishment pro-disruptive technology Slashdot suddenly become strict stickers of "Da Law"And all it took was for the issue to involve a non-US city.

What happened to all the voices in those past Lyft/Uber threads talking about how stupid it was that some US cities were thinking of limiting these startups, or that taxi companies wanted to strike? What happened to those angry tirades about government-business collusion, regulatory capture, and backwater anti-competitive provincialism? Are those just pr

People are just getting into the office in Europe so all the moderation and comments may be skewed at the moment toward them. Europeans to a much greater degree seem to interpret regulations and protections as a blanket keeping them warm and safe. In the states we get the same 'blanket' but our interpretation is different. Maybe we were cold maybe we weren't but we never asked for a blanket, can't move very well and what kind of weirdo just walks up and tries someone up in a blanket? Any moment the blan

What happened to all the voices in those past Lyft/Uber threads talking about how stupid it was that some US cities were thinking of limiting these startups,

There's a difference between some cities trying to block Uber because it undermines the outdated medallion concept, and a city having reasonable requirements to offer a commercial transportation service and expecting it to be followed. You might feel that Berlin's public transport act is unreasonable, though I doubt you have any idea what's in it, but if the locals think that it is reasonable then it is perfectly reasonable for the government to expect companies to follow it. It seems that Berlin's issues are primarily that passangers may not be adequately insured and that Uber may not be checking that all drivers are licensed (which includes checks on criminal record, health and driving record) which don't seem unreasonable to me. I don't want services like Uber to accept drivers that meet a certain standard!

victims should not be holding the bag when drivers like this have insurance that uses loop holes to get out of covering victims. Taxis and other "commercial transport license" drivers have insurance that covers them all the time.

The companies DO provide insurance. $1M in coverage, but it is only in effect from the time the ride is accepted to the time the passengers exit. That situation was an edge case, an auto/pedestrian collision right at the border of that time, immediately before the passenger was in the car. They denied coverage because the event happened immediately before coverage took effect. Much like having an insurance policy that takes effect October 1st and

If a driver hits you and doesn't have insurance, your own insurance company will cover you and they in turn will do civil suits against the driver to get reimbursement. (This isn't the US, you guys get screwed by your government and insurance companies, we do less so here in Europe)

victims should not be holding the bag when drivers like this have insurance that uses loop holes to get out of covering victims. Taxis and other "commercial transport license" drivers have insurance that covers them all the time.

In Australia an Uber driver with private car insurance (meaning all of them) would still have the claims paid out (except that of the Uber driver, because he violated the terms of the policy). However the insurer would be free to go after any assets the driver has and any assets Uber has as compensation.

I think you are wrong in this case, particularly as the case is in Germany. In the US getting into a cab is pretty horrific experience at the best of times, my experience has been several white knuckle drives where I have actually said to the driver I will tip him if he slows down, or taxis that simply aren't clean.

In Germany my experience has been taxis arriving on time, driven well and immaculately clean. Having legislated taxi services can mean that your drivers are vetted to a higher level (ie police

Hahaha, you make it sound as if "being licensed" has some implication of advanced skill.

and maybe you don't know as much as you think you do:

The following are required by 1st time applicants for a Personenbeforderungsschein

Formal Application Antrag (obtained at the driver licensing office, usually the Road Traffic Office of the Community or Parish)

Personalausweis or passport (in combination with a valid personal registration)

Fuhrerschein (only the standard EU-Driving Licence is acceptable)

Medical Report from a Doctor specialised in ''Arbeitsmedizin'' or a Dr. with a qualification in ''Betriebsmedizin'' or a Report from a Reporting Institute for physical and mental driving competence. Info regarding which Drs. can do this is given by the Road Traffic Office. (The diagnostics relate to Stress, Reaction and Perception testing.)

Opticians Report or Certificate

Medical confirmation of Physical and Mental ability.

Fuhrungszeugnis (Criminal Record Report) with NO entries (for Official use only)

Extract from the Central Traffic Register Kraftfahrt-Bundesamtes in Flensburg

Ortskenntnisnachweis Proof of Knowledge (for the relevant district for Hire cars in Communities with population over 50.000).

Questions are to be answered regarding Places of Interest, Public Buildings, City districts. Generally routes will also be tested by giving starting and finishing points and allowing the candidate to describe the shortest route. Usually the Taxi company intending to employ the candidate will assist with the preparation for this test.

Application: We have taxi licensing here, too. which also requires registration and a driving license. Won't require a physical, but national health insurance will probably change that. Already requires that you can see, which is part of the driving licensing test. Already requires that we're assumed to be physically and mentally able to drive, which is part of the driving licensing test (supposedly. Yes ours are woefully bad.) A criminal record will not automatically disqualify you, which is a good thing,

Hahaha, you make it sound as if "being licensed" has some implication of advanced skill.

In Germany? You bet it does. I wish people would stop projecting American incompetence at running government services on the rest of the world.

Actually, I read it as assuming competence where there in fact is none. Europeans brag about how much testing they have to go through before they can get licensed, as if they all had to be exemplary drivers just to get a license. Now you're telling us that this isn't true, that the average driver isn't capable of driving a car. Which is it? Make up your fucking mind.

Actually, I read it as assuming competence where there in fact is none. Europeans brag about how much testing they have to go through before they can get licensed, as if they all had to be exemplary drivers just to get a license. Now you're telling us that this isn't true, that the average driver isn't capable of driving a car. Which is it? Make up your fucking mind.

I did my test in London and lived in New Mexico for a few years. If you believe the English driving test is not substantially harder than the New Mexico one then I have a bridge to sell you. The England one is one of the hardest in the world and has a very substantial failure rate.

And in Germany, commercial drivers are licensed and required to have an EVEN HIGHER standard of driving than regular drivers.

And now for the bragging. Here is a table of countries by road fatalities:

Germany and the UK, two countries with strict licensing of various sorts are several times safer than the US when it comes to driving. And those are two countries with a very high population density. If you bring in lower density countries with more adverse driving conditions like Norway the stats get even better.

Basically stricter driver licensing provably works at making the roads safer.

It has nothing to do with skill. "Being licensed" has some implication (however imperfect it may be) of being insured and being a known citizen, with a history of following the rules of the road and laws in general.

Not being licensed means you could be an uninsured, unidentifiable, homicidal maniac fresh out of prison. Personally I'd prefer some kind of means of avoiding getting in a car alone with these people.

sure, if you don't equate commercial transport license to "Taxi medallion more costly than the car itself".

Which is fairly common.

and really, the places where it's like that is where the taxis are lobbying for banning uber. it would be rather easy to check out available uber taxis and check if they have license or not and smack them with the appropriate fines if not. but if you want to protect your roaming or taxi pole mafia, then you need to ban the whole concept.

accusing Berlin of denying its people choice and mobility. "As a new entrant we are bringing much-needed competition to a market that hasn't changed in years. Competition is good for everyone and it raises the bar and ultimately it's the consumer who wins,"

There is a law. German wide. Which says: to transport people commercially you need a "commercial transport license".

So although you just acknowledged that Berlin deliberately denies its choice and mobility by presenting the proof thereof, Uber is retarded?

This is not an "anti Uber law", this is law valid for every citizen or corporation.

Yes, a law which deliberately denies choice and mobility specifically for the purpose of profit protectionism. Just like Uber says.

If Uber wants to do business they should "hire" 'professional drivers'

That's not what Uber does. Uber enables citizens to do business, and they get a cut for enabling that business. Except, of course, in places which deny their citizens choice and mobility in pursuit of profit.

No, they haven't. If Uber was willing to themselves shoulder any liability, that would be one thing. But they claim that individual drivers are responsible for any liability that may arise in an accident, and that Uber is not responsible. Of course, conveniently enough, the average driver nowhere near enough assets to pay out any liability claim in the case where they caused an accident. That is precisely why insurance is required.

No, this is precisely about accountability. It's not a new problem either: London invented this solution in response to this problem ~350 years ago. In the 17th century, there were many hackney carriages driven by unscrupulous drivers, who had no assets you could go after to pay for damages they caused through their rash behavior.

Here are two solutions:

1. Enforce a skill floor on drivers, so the worst cannot drive at all.

2. Require the rest of the drivers to carry insurance, so that any damages they cause t

No, this is precisely about accountability. It's not a new problem either: London invented this solution in response to this problem ~350 years ago. In the 17th century, there were many hackney carriages driven by unscrupulous drivers, who had no assets you could go after to pay for damages they caused through their rash behavior.

Here are two solutions:

1. Enforce a skill floor on drivers, so the worst cannot drive at all.

2. Require the rest of the drivers to carry insurance, so that any damages they cause to a third party may be assured coverage.

If they applied this to Uber, they'd be just as expensive (if not more so) than regular taxi services.

I firmly believe that any driver or car could register as a taxi as long as they meet these requirements:
1. The driver to be licensed as a taxi driver (in Perth, Western Australia we have a test kind of like London's "The Knowledge" but far simpler).
2. The vehicle to be in good condition (as in beyond just roadworthy).
3. The driver is insured as a commercial driver.

Plenty of people on the roads who only have licenses because the cops haven't caught them yet (driving dangerously, hooning, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, driving unsafe or un-roadworthy cars or otherwise doing things that put the lives of other road users at risk)

If you have personal auto insurance and you drive the vehicle commercially, the insurance will not pay out: driving commercially violates the terms of personal auto insurance, so you voided the policy. So you are uninsured.in that case, despite claiming to be insured. If you drive commercially, you need commercial auto insurance to actually have a policy that is valid.

They can consider themselves a sovereign state for all that means.
Uber provides a commercial transport service even if they're simply contracting out the actual transport to someone else. So it should be up to them to make sure that the drivers they use meet the regulations of the country. Nothing here is saying that Uber cannot provide transport services. Just that they need to provide them under existing regulations.
Now if they do not wish to do this they have two paths of recourse. Either not enter the market, or lobby for a law change.

I don't want to get into the merits of the law or applying it to Uber. I just wanted to point out that there is an argument that this law should not apply to them. It may or may not be a good argument.

Then they can bring their case to court and let the judges decide.But until then they are bound by the decisions of the official body that regulates these matters.This is about people's safety, so they have to follow the safety regulations until it is proven they don't have to.

Germany isn't the Wild West where companies can do as they please and consumer rights be damned.

First off TFA is about as weak on details as it is in verb conjugation. And we just clip and paste without editing?

What is proper insurance cover(age)? Are the limits too low, or not commercially based? Or not vetted properly?

Quite honestly, I've never "Ubered" a substandard ride. I've had a few tardy ones I canceled, sans expense. Nothing compared to ANY taxi service. When I "Uber" a ride I get immaculately clean vehicles, professionally dressed drivers who own high end vehicles. Compared to a possible slacker, who's leased a 200k mile sled with vinyl seats and a plexiglas separator, talking on his bluetooth earpiece and bitching when I want to settle with a card and not cash.

It would sure be nice to read an article with USEFUL UTILITY (not to mention an edited summary).

When I "Uber" a ride, I get a regular taxi. They call it "uberTAXI", and it's the only service available in the second largest city in Canada. A regular taxi shows up, and you get billed the regulated meter rate.

About the only advantage is that Uber's app is probably more reliable/better than the very similar apps used by existing taxi companies in Montreal. I've had Diamond Taxi's app crap out on me after ordering a few times, and the GPS on the taxi only updates infrequently.

First off TFA is about as weak on details as it is in verb conjugation. And we just clip and paste without editing?

What is proper insurance cover(age)? Are the limits too low, or not commercially based? Or not vetted properly?

TFA was clear enough. Licensed taxi drivers (certainly in most EU countries) are expected to demonstrate a level of competence and suitability to operate as a commercial driver; e.g. must not have a criminal record, must pass an advanced driving test, must pass a medical, must have proper commercial vehicle insurance, etc. And it is illegal to transport passengers for money without a commercial license and commercial vehicle insurance.

Uber's position is that anybody who downloads their app can call themsel

I don't know why Uber is complaining. All they need to do, after all, is to recruit drivers with a commercial license; require the vehicles to comply to commercial safety standards; and provide the needed insurance. It's not as if the deck is stacked against them - the other services they compete against all follow the same rules.

For my part as a potential user, liability is the real issue. I would never risk taking a car service where I'm not fully covered in the case of an accident. It's not just medical and other costs for myself; if the driver is not licensed you, as the one paying for the ride, may be regarded as co-responsible if your driver caused the accident in the first place. You want to risk hundreds of thousands of Euro in damages to save a few bucks on a taxi ride?

I don't know why Uber is complaining. All they need to do, after all, is to recruit drivers with a commercial license;

In Germany, if they carry less than 8 passengers and if their vehicles are below a certain weight, then they don't need to take a different driving test [tuev-sued.de].

What they do need however is a license to operate a taxi, and that's determined locally, with a criminal background/medical/eyes check, and a very stringent but outdated local geography test that has been rendered completely useless by mobile applications such as Google Maps Navigation and Waze.

For my part as a potential user, liability is the real issue. I would never risk taking a car service where I'm not fully covered in the case of an accident.

In Germany, if they carry less than 8 passengers and if their vehicles are below a certain weight, then they don't need to take a different driving test.That is incorrect. This is only valid if you don't commercially transport passengers.If you actually do transport passengers comercially, you need an extra driving license, and you need the same extra license if you transport more than 7 or 8 people _non_ commercially (in one vehicle) like e.g. if you bring boy scouts into a camp. Every bus driver bringing kids to school has such a license!

outdated local geography test that has been rendered completely useless by mobile applications such as Google Maps Navigation and Waze.Well, I usualy have trips that are not longer than 15 minutes, and I appreciate it if the driver does not need 2 mins to set up the navigation first, especially if the spelling of the target is odd.

In the US, Uber covers you for up to one million dollars. Erm, do you actually own a car? I guess not.My private, standard, insurance for my private car, with no intent to be used commercially is insured up to 10 million Euro (damage to persons). That is a very normal rate, I doubt you can even get a lower one.

My bet is that you'll probably have better coverage when you travel as a passenger/driver with Uber than if you were to drive yourself personallyCertainly not. Damage to yourself is not covered by your car insurance. That is covered by your health and/or accident insurance or 'out of job insurance' in case you can no longer work.

In Germany, if they carry less than 8 passengers and if their vehicles are below a certain weight, then they don't need to take a different driving test.That is incorrect. This is only valid if you don't commercially transport passengers.If you actually do transport passengers comercially, you need an extra driving license, and you need the same extra license if you transport more than 7 or 8 people _non_ commercially (in one vehicle) like e.g. if you bring boy scouts into a camp. Every bus driver bringing kids to school has such a license!

I mentioned the term "driving test", not driver license. Also, I provided a source. You didn't. And I did mention that you needed a taxi license in my following paragraph.

outdated local geography test that has been rendered completely useless by mobile applications such as Google Maps Navigation and Waze.Well, I usualy have trips that are not longer than 15 minutes, and I appreciate it if the driver does not need 2 mins to set up the navigation first, especially if the spelling of the target is odd.

Then you should use Uber then, because you confirm the address on your own mobile phone, everything after that is fully automated, and the Uber driver doesn't have to set up anything.

In the US, Uber covers you for up to one million dollars. Erm, do you actually own a car? I guess not.

I do, but only in California. The minimum mandatory coverage in California is actually crazy small.$15,000 for injury/death to one person$30,000 for injury/d

What they do need however is a license to operate a taxi, and that's determined locally, with a criminal background/medical/eyes check, and a very stringent but outdated local geography test that has been rendered completely useless by mobile applications such as Google Maps Navigation and Waze.

So require that the drivers have it, outdated or not. It's required by all commercial passenger traffic so it's not as f it discriminates against Uber after all. If they really don't like it, they're free to lobby an

Not many other countries intentionally bankrupt accident victims the way the US does.

I don't live in the US, and I agree. But, if you're found liable for an accident you will tend to pay a lot of money in any country; the accident victims likely have life or accident insurance and their insurance company will want to get reimbursed.

So good, comprehensive accident insurance is a very good idea no matter where you live. Usually we have that as part of our home insurance or other thing like that, and if you ow

That's still not very civilised. In more developed parts of the world medical expenses will be paid by the same entity regardless of who was at fault, meaning no need for lawyers and such to determine who's at fault, and bankruptcy over medical costs is never even a possibility.

What bar are Uber raising? All I can see is a race to the bottom. If I get into a taxi, I want to know that it's insured, up to a reasonable minimum standard of safety and security, that the driver is fully informed of his/her legal obligations, and that if something happens that's suspect, illegal, or just plain wrong, I have official channels to go through that can deal with the issue quickly and effectively. That means every taxi and every driver has to be identifiable and reachable. How else do you ensu

"As a new entrant we are bringing much-needed competition to a market that hasn't changed in years. Competition is good for everyone and it raises the bar and ultimately it's the consumer who wins,"

Says the guy who gets to profit. Follow the money - of course he'd say something like that. PR drones are paid for coming up with good reasons why their product is the best thing since sliced bread.

Actually, sliced bread is pretty awful, but that's a different story.

The market has changed quite considerably. German startups like MyTaxi are increasingly replacing the old and stupid middlemen with a nice mobile service that connects drivers and passengers directly. There's a bit of competition in that market as well. Then there are the modern car-sharing companies like Car2Go and DriveNow and some others, where you can take any of their cars wherever you find it and can drop it off wherever you go. No need to go to designated parking spots or something. They're basically like a taxi you drive yourself. In a few years, they'll probably have an autonomous car in the mix that you can call on your smartphone and it'll pick you up.

To say the market is stagnant is a bold piece of PR lies. There have never been so many options for personal transport, changing so quickly.

Uber is not as revolutionary as it makes itself out to be. But more important: They don't understand the European market, where american wild-west methods of just riding into town and taking what you think is yours by god given rights are not welcome. We have regulations and laws and rules, and we actually quite like them. They make our lives more calm and plannable. Europe has a different culture, less friendly to startups and hotshot ideas, but it also means fewer people crash and burn, and less collateral damage when they do.

If Uber gave a fuck, they could operate in Berlin. But their attitude - which was visible in other german cities like Hamburg where they also ran into problems - was basically "this is our cool business idea, go and change your laws if you don't like it". I'm not surprised that with that attitude, someone told them to fuck off and die.

These guys seem to be copping a whole lot of shit just for trying to make transport easier for users.

No, these guys are copping a whole lot of shit for trying to offer no-standards transport in nations that have minimum standards for their public transport services.

It's not good enough to be cheap in Europe if you don't meet basic standards. The EU has a lot of consumer protection laws designed to look after their residents (now there's a thought), a concept that is completely foreign in the US where it seems that only company profits matter.

If you want to do business in Europe, you don't have any magic right to ignore European legislation and import the US rulebook instead.

This. IN europe taxis have insurance that actually covers damages to the passengers. Normal car insurances don't cover the use for commercial usage. The very basic level for consumers is _FORCED_ on everyone, because we, as people, rather hae a private company and the users of said taxi services pay for the injuries etc instead of paying for them collectively. (we are not going to leave anyone untreated, even if they have no personal insurance, therefore public transport pays a premiun insurance, because th

1. In Germany, insurance that covers passengers is mandatory for anyone driving a car.2. All cars have pass inspection every two years.3. The tests to get a drivers license are quite stringent and you have to take driving lessons at a licensed school.4. A drivers license will be revoked quickly if you rack up penalty points.5. The Uber app should be able to warn users if the driver takes a longer route than necessary.6. AFAIK, the Uber app provides ratings for drivers and customers and both drivers and cust

No. Standard insurance does not cover commercial drivers. They'd have to get a different kind of insurance. AFAIK if someone with standard insurance caused an accident, the insurance would pay the victims and then demand its money back from the insured person.

Uber would certainly need to verify that its drivers are covered appropriately.

But the rules for commercial provision of transport service are far more stricter. Obviously adhering to these rules is connected to a cost which Uber drivers do not have to pay and thus can be cheaper.

It is somewhat sane to demand a higher level of security from drivers that are expected to transport more people. Yes, it would be very safe to demand the same level from everyone that is driving a vehicle. But demanding the higher standards only from those transporting the most people gives a good trade-of

1. In Germany, insurance that covers passengers is mandatory for anyone driving a car.

Insurance policies always have legalese which absolve them of paying out when the vehicle is used in an improper fashion. At best it might offer basic 3rd party insurance which might not include you as a paying passenger or limit your claim. And you assume someone has insurance to begin with.

2. All cars have pass inspection every two years.

Taxis are considered as small public vehicles and usually have additional standards they must meet with regard to cleanliness, luggage capacity, suitable vehicle models, safety equipment (fire extinguisher, first aid ki

1, 2, 3. Insurance, inspections and drivers licenses are strictly controlled in Germany and violations are rare. Furthermore, I'd expect Uber to demand copies of the relevant documents.1. Uber seems to provide additional insurance to its customers.2. I think the standards for roadworthy cars are high enough in Germany. If someone wants even higher standards, he can simply not choose to use Uber.3. With current navigational systems, local geographic knowledge is not very important anymore.6. The app provides

So, what did YOU do? And to be fair: what did anyone here do to achieve what you said?
Just being born into US or some European country citizenship doesn't entitle you to anything.
You like the USA? Guess from where those founder fathers came. You like democracy? You should thank the Greeks. You like logic, as it is used in philosophy and the sciences? You should thank the Greeks, although the native cultures in middle and south America invented very similar concepts. You like your pretty fireworks on the 4th of July? You should thank the Chinese. You like your combustion engines? You should thank the Germans. You like your space program that put a man on the moon? Then you should also thank the ancient Chinese and nazi Germany scientists that invented the liquid fuel rocket. You like modern, digital microelectronics? You should thank a Albert Einstein, a German Jew. His Nobel Prize winning paper about the inner photoelectric effect laid the foundation for the development of lasers, which are used in the photolithography process since the 80s.
If you actually look at history then you will see that there were brilliant inventors all over the world, none if which are YOU or I. It just happens that the rest of the world is older than the USA and therefore had more time to make "history". Native Americans had their accomplishments as well. But apparently a lot of those cultures didn't regard record keeping in a similar way as the "old world", where history was rewritten by the victor as well.

Why can't we stop with the penis fencing, which don't even belong to us, and break it down to the underlying issue. Just like the US is allowed to make their own laws so are other nations. And if you want to do business with them you have to play according to their rules.

While I agree with you that most people cannot tolerate hipsters, I disagree with your assertion that most people will put up with unlicensed taxi drivers.I travel all over Europe and Asian as part of job and for personal reasons and I have learned one thing..NEVER take unofficial taxis. EVER.Oversight and regulation of certain industries are not a bad thing.

I travel all over Europe and Asian as part of job and for personal reasons and I have learned one thing..NEVER take unofficial taxis. EVER.

Which is why I don't get the concern about Uber etc. I travel abroad plenty and finding out what official taxis are, how to make sure it is an official taxi, how to check they are doing what an official taxi should etc is a lot of work and still has risks. With a system like Ubers I know that the car I'm calling is part of their network, would be kicked off rapidly if they don't follow Uber's rules etc. I've only used Uber a couple of times and in places where I know the official taxis are legit, but I'd probably feel safer taking an Uber ride in Thailand than finding an official taxi.

So what you are saying is that if the vehicle is clean, has a working AC, and is very cheap.. then its 100% certain to be an official taxi?

Pretty much yes. Official taxis charge regulated, metered rate, which ends up being very cheap. 'Private' taxi drivers live off ignorant tourists that don't even know they are getting fleeced unless driver gets really greedy and charges something like 5x rate.

Have you actually learned to read, or are you just spouting Statist defenses?

Grow up kid and maybe visit the place before you start spouting off crap and make an idiot of yourself.

The hard part about Thai taxis is finding them. As a tourist, you'll be swarmed by conmen with tuktuks, fake cabs and motos. Meanwhile, the legit taxis won't be in a hurry to find you because they won't speak English. I'd forgive anyone for thinking that Thai cabs are corrupt. They didn't seem to be to me, but they were not easy to find.

OTOH, in Malaysia, the taxis are so severely corrupt that I had to consider them to not exist. Ask at a taxi stand for a metered fare? "The meter is broken" from eve

A hipster is somebody who would suddenly get a different taste if (and because) you'd like their taste.They are people who so desperately want to be seen as different that they end up all being the same.

It's like how children want to be adults, but adults don't care about being adult.Hipsters want to be interresting, but interresting people don't care about being interresting.

". Is it wrong for the people of a sovereign state to have rules?"
No, it's just wrong for a public utility to use legislation to eliminate competition (thereby lowering the quality of service) instead of raising their level and competing on the same field of play.

Actually the quallity of service is not lowerd.How should that be? Your idea is retarded, lol.

If Uber wants to compete 'on the same field of play': they should raise their standard!

It is not a public utility that is making those laws... the laws are made by the parliament... the law is over 100 years old... and it is not a 'Berlin thing' similar laws we have all over europe. I doubt you can drive in any european country (regardless if EU or not) a cab without having the proper license... well perhaps in

The legislation existed before Uber but they ignored it - there is no elimination of competition going on here, there is competition failing to compete by the same rules and restrictions as their competitors.

Imagine a company being founded along the same lines as Uber, but their service being "build a house" - they may be cheap, but they get there by ignoring local building codes... No one is going to bitch about local government enforcing those pre-existing codes, so why should they bitch about pre-existi

It's simply the law, and this law is much older than Uber itself.It has always been there and still needs to be applied, even after Uber appears.(Some other countries like Switzerland have similair laws).

If you transport people professionally (no mater if you're some minister's chauffeur, a taxi driver, working as a bus driver in the public transportation service, or simply driving a minivan with more than 7 passengers) the law requires that you have a special driving license and insurance companies require that you subscribe a different type of insurance policy (insurance is mandatory in EU).Uber is note immune to the law. People get money to carry people around with Uber, they must therefore follow the state law.

This is not taxi drivers protesting against Uber because it's competing with them, it's simply the city ruling that Uber needs to play by the same rule like everybody else.

BTW the law is maybe old in the Germany, but similar law has been created in the UK only 10 years ago. In order to run a mini-cab service, you need to make sure to follow a few regulation like all your car must pass a car inspection and your driver must be insured, with valid license,...

The UK is a lot closer to the US and yet, they created that law a decade ago.

Dude, if you found a company here in my town and start advertising you are driving people around, the next thing that is happening is the the responsible offices visit you and check your company.There is absolutely no lobby needed for that.

And by the way: the exact same thing happens if you open a restaurant, want to sell hot dogs at a street or want to over medical services, there are hundrets of other things, like selling alcohol, weapons or tabaco where you exactly know it is only a matter of days after

However if you read about Berlin taxis there is a really low demand for them because of how good other public transport is. To the point that taxis don't circulate around Berlin to do pickups - they are purely a call and we come service.

Taxis in Berlin are small fry business compared to say LA or New York. The other component is that European governments are more concerned with individual safety that the US government is. From the US side you can argue that that makes them interfering nanny states. From

For that we already have private lift/ride sharing where the 'passengers' pay a part of the fuel bill.Obviously that is more interesting for long distances, as soon as you over sucha lift more than once a day inside of the same town, or on the sa,e route back amd forth (and get more money than the fuel costs) every controlling agency would argue you do that commercially.

Those 'services' are private drivers who are driving that way regardless of whether they have passengers. The fare is not profit, but to cover the fuel cost. If said driver was charging more than the cost of the fuel, and was making several trips a day to places they wouldn't be going anyway, then they'd be breaking the law and face prosecution.